Co-axial - a myth or a real deal.

I’m not a watchmaker but as an engineer I think you are correct to a point. If you look at all part then some are more delicate, some more robust. The coaxial is a huge step in the right direction for a vulnerable part. Roger Smith has advanced this idea further and is trying to address your other concerns, which is to remove or reduce the use of lubricants. He is trying to advance the use of nanotechnologies to minimise wear, increase service intervals and reduce oils. It will be interesting to see where he takes it over the next few years. He builds his watches (as did George) like tanks, for centuries. Omega’s have a Fantastic innovation in a standard but great quality movement which should certainly last a long time….when serviced.

Broke the crown off my 2015 SM300 and had it serviced at the same time as the repair. It came back like new & runs pretty much spot on.

The coaxial escapement may indeed be revolutionary & fantastic, as are the spirate regulation and silicone parts, but I agree with you that a system is only as strong as it's weakest component.

But that's not good marketing, & I'm a happy Omega fan so I'll keep my blinkers on. 😁👍

Edit - fantastic watch you have there, absolutely love it. A Grail 😍👏🏻👏🏻

About a year and a half ago I bought Constellation Globemaster Annual Calendar from AD in Nassau, Bahamas. It also has the coaxial movement with double-barrel design. It was brand new. I think my particular watch was manufactured in 2016-2017 and I got it in 2022. But I do not see the problem you are experiencing. So, it maybe, it is just you were a little unlucky and a problem got past Omega quality control. Hopefully they correct it and you will enjoy your watch for many years.

My understanding was that modern oils used in watchmaking don't dry out. Certainly not within a few years in a sealed unit. I've heard more than one watchmaker state they didn't see leaving your watch unwound for extended periods as an issue. 🤔

Reference please 😍

Not sure it is one of the biggest innovations. It’s an innovation, but one could argue is it worth the extra thickness? As for the issue, my only Omega with it is the SMP 300, newer model, no issues for me with it so far.

I have several Omegas with the co-axial escapement. It's cool! It's great to learn about Daniels and the engineering behind the coaxial escapement. In fact, the 8900 movement in my Planet Ocean is the most accurate of any watch I've owned; I gained something like 15 seconds in 8 months.

However, that probably has nothing to do with the coaxial escapement. The Rolex service interval is something like 10 years now, and they don't have a "frictionless" coaxial escapement. Modern synthetic lubricants are incredibly durable, and they matter much more than the escapement design. Finally, remember that the escapement is only one part of the watch. The rest of the pivots, etc. need to be serviced too. Your new car engine might have a 20,000 mile oil change interval, but you still need to replace tires and brake pads...

I’m a watchmaker - the original coaxial was probably more geared towards larger escapements like in clocks. It has taken some refining over the years and is currently in a pretty good iteration.

The chronometry of it is, honestly, as good as the best non-coaxial movements. Modern materials and manufacturing has helped us achieve good isochronism without the need for things like a tourbillon or coaxial - those things are still cool though. If you can get 2s/d on a modern Rolex and 2s/d on coaxial then it’s hard to say which is better in terms of timekeeping because they’re both capable of virtually the same metrics

It could be a lot of things, one like you say, one like the weakest link type proposal, or unfortunately you could have just got a lemon.

Another proposal is regarding volume and large scale manufacturing, no different than in vehicles or other mass manufactured production, a certain percent will have issues or failure rates. If the transmission on 10,000 vehicles has issues and a million of that model were produced a 1% rate with issues wouldn’t necessarily be a design flaw or concern even though 10,000 units a lot. 🤷‍♂️something to consider.

Glad you got the watch and aren’t letting something that happens to machines get you down. It’s a gorgeous watch.

All I can add is my Planet Ocean (1st gen) ran for ten years plus before it needed service. Standard service was all it needed to run like new. Still does several years later.

PS: The coax movement may be unnecessary these days given modern Rolex accuracy, but at the time Omega introduced the coax, there was no rival for accuracy by a long shot, including Rolex.

This is spot on. The coaxial is not necessary better then a well regulated swiss lever escapement. It is simply a different way of getting the same result.

The best engineering in the world can still be undone by the oil and the passing of time. Even modern oils dry up eventually.

Not a fan. I appreciate what it’s trying to do, which is to add complexity and achieve more theoretical elegance, but the problem is that it really did add complexity and make for much tighter needed tolerances.

It was an amazing piece of work under the individual hand production and tolerances of George Daniels, but once it was licensed for Omega’s industrial mass production, it almost didn’t work out — you can look up the discussions of how early versions did not mesh perfectly, then also had to be reduced in beat frequency to remain stable, and it was slowed down to this day. Today all these “fixes” have been applied and it does work fine, but still appear to be very finicky to oil — unless you’re Omega trained under a microscope, it is very easy to mis-oil the right amount or in the wrong places.

In a world without quartz, I think this would have been an absolutely monumental achievement, to improve upon the centuries-old Swiss lever. But in a world where quartz does exist and is far more elegant in isochronism, and where Rolex can execute a Swiss lever to the same accuracy (+-2s) and longevity (10 years) using modern MEMS tooling, I fail to see the point unless it’s being individually hand produced.

Or you know, you can just get high accuracy quartz 😄

I think this is a pretty good explanation that discusses the modern synthetic oils topic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNFOtAJNyJs

Also note that "modern" in this case is starting in the 1950's with Rolex. So we are talking over 70 years that watches have not really had an issue with oils drying out.

Thank you for your reply. I will definitely look closelyinto Roger Smith’s work. Sounds super interesting. 💪

I sincerely hope you are right about bad luck. Can’t wait to see my watch back from Omega :)

So what you’re saying is- manufacturing defect rather than long storage issue, correct?

511.13.38.20.02.002

Thanks for stepping in, good to hear from a pro. Any thoughts on service intervals? Is 10-years under every day use something we all should believe? (regardless of the brand and escapement).

Thanks for sharing, sounds like very reasonable explanation too.

Guessing only. 🤷

This i# a great little video https://youtu.be/M1Be89xssps?si=gNRBOMFM9QSL7y65

Thank you for sharing. I’ve watched the video, really interesting, but now I have even more questions.

Obviously wear and tear on your watch depends on how and how often it’s being used. Just like with say a car.

Staying on an automotive parallel - in the 40’s and 50’s a healthy engine oil change interval was no more than 2000-2500km. I could have been a bit more for some premium brands or heavy duty engines but it was 5-6 times more frequent than what we have now. And it makes total sense - oils have improved, materials and technology used to build engines also improved. That said many car brands e.g. BMW suggests going with car’s computer calculated oil change schedule. In most cases users ends up changing oil every 25000-35000km significantly impacting engine’s life span. You can find videos of an oil drained from an engine after such a high mileage, looks more like a dirty gel in many cases. More to say - all German premium car manufacturers state in their manuals transmission oil does not need to be changed EVER. Most of these companies use ZF transmissions and ZF themselves advise oil change every 60000km. Whom to trust?

You have me convinced on oil quality and small likelihood of it drying out after few years on the shelf. I feel mass production and unavoidable manufacturing errors are what happened to me quite possibly (what it says about COSC/METAS testing BTW?).

I’m still not convinced that extended service period are actually a thing. There are so many variables and most of them are out of manufacturer’s control. Something among the lines of “up to 10 years service interval depending on individual use” seems more believable.

I think they done you a bamboozle. The Coaxial Escapement reduces wear… to the pallet jewels. Not the entire escapement since the escapement pivots and jewels will still need to be serviced on the same schedule as the rest of the movement.

So how important is it that wear on the pallet jewels is reduced? I suggest that nobody here has owned or worn a watch long enough to wear out a pallet jewel. Maybe if you’ve worn the same watch daily since the 70s but if that were the case, what the heck are you doing here? But let’s suppose that you have an old watch with worn pallet jewels, they can easily be replaced during a regular service just like any part.

Going back to car analogy, suppose a manufacturer is using super high tech ceramic bearings in a turbo as a selling point. What if he told you that those bearings extended the service of the life of the whole engine? What if he told you that those bearings gave you more power than a car of the same power? You see how ridiculous that sounds. That’s a lot to ask of turbo bearings. Yet it’s also a lot to ask of pallet jewels.

My view is this: if you are very concerned of the condition of your pallet jewels and you don’t want to replace this single part during a regular service 50 years from now, then coaxial is for you. If you believe any claim other than it reduces wear to the pallet jewels, you have been bamboozled.